Slashdot Mirror
Making and Detecting Illegal Music
Demona writes "Long-time music aficionado
Dave Marsh has an article in the latest edition of
Counterpunch entitled
Sampler's Delight. Giving rave reviews to "Nothing to Fear", the
latest in a
long line of so-called
illegal music, he also describes a "'major label waveform CD database,' which is capable of recognizing materials allegedly owned by the record label cartel." This database is allegedly why a UK pressing plant rejected the initial attempt at publishing "Nothing To Fear", which is comprised almost entirely of sampled material."
As a lot of readers probably know gracenote uses simple metrics about the length of the songs and their position on the cd to check a database to find likely matches. Gracenote maintains nothing of the sort of a waveform database.
While i believe there is/was at least one startup that was working to match music using a beats & tone analysis method that could match to songs that had been shifted or obscured in some way, i'm not sure this technology has ever been in real use.
The idea that there is some huge waveform database that cd pressing plants now use is pretty suspicious. I think working in the industry i would have heard about it, even if it was kept secret the storage capacity and processing needs would be astronomical. 11,000 albums heavily compressed to 160kbps still takes approximately 600gb, I understand that the amount of in print US albums is somewhere between 200,000 - 300,000 and more like 600,000 for world releases (in print only). Searching through a collection like that would easily take days or weeks depending on how small a segment you were trying to match
What more blatent example of satire can there be than an artist scrambling and re-arranging the works of other artists for the sake of mockery. I myself enjoy warping and "Mashing" otherwise lame recordings. If someone can take one creation, and turn it into another, it should be respected as a seperate work of art. Besides, I haven't seen an original concept in popular music for years. Most modern music is just recycled chords, lyrics, and beats.
Make a song detailing how to decrypt dvds.
If major labels are bothering you all so much, why do you keep supporting them by talking about their bands, trading their music, grudgingly BUYING THEIR CDs??
Sometimes I just don't get the Slashdot crowd... Many of us use Linux and have given up on using Microsoft stuff, but when it comes to the latest crappy mainstream music, we whine that we can't pirate it? Come on.... If you really feel that major labels are screwing you, give them up. Support inedepent musicians and labels.
There's a whole world of music out there that is cheaper, more interesting, more cutting-edge, etc..etc... You just have to look a little harder to find it, just like you had to try a bit harder to get Linux installed and your closed-source applications replaced by Free Software.
Sorry for the rant...you might mod me down, but really....If some big companies are doing something you don't like, forget about them and move on to something better.
Cheers,
Vic
While i believe there is/was at least one startup that was working to match music using a beats & tone analysis method that could match to songs that had been shifted or obscured in some way
That was Relatable.
i'm not sure this technology has ever been in real use.
Napster 10.x used it. MusicBrainz uses it.
11,000 albums heavily compressed to 160kbps still takes approximately 600gb
Relatable claims that its tech can identify songs down to 16 kbps.
Will I retire or break 10K?
can't you see that sampling without permission, and then selling the copies, is illegal for a reason?
I absolutely can not see that. This is our culture we're sampling. I agree that it wouldn't be fair to copy your entire album and sell it, but if I just sample 5 or 10 or 30 seconds of it, how is that impacting the sales of your album?
No one is going to say "Oh, I'm not going to buy that old Beach Boys album because artist Xyzzy used a 12 second sample of it, and those were the only 12 seconds I wanted anyway!" No one chose to buy Plunderphonics because they couldn't afford the original version of the Beatles' "A Day In The Life", so they decided a chopped-up unrecognizable version of the ending would be close enough.
Copyright is there to give the artist incentive to create. Sampling laws don't do that. No one says "I'm going to create a great song so that it can be sampled a lot and I can collect royalties." That's just a happy side benefit to selling albums.
But sampling laws DO encourage people not to create by giving them a limited pallete to work with.
Hasn't Puff Daddy ... proven your
assertion already?
Except... (Skip the obvious troll to get to my point)
Puffy took *good* music and turned it into complete crap.
However, you raise a good point.
Why can *he* steal 90% of a song, unmodified, and sell it as "his" work, while these other "illegal" artists take small clips and heavily modify them, yet the result counts as a copyright violation?
The answer?
Puffy sells.
These other groups do not.
At the "Negativland" link, it mentions that the fee, $70k, exceeds their *total* sales in 14 years. That does not make the labels money.
I think that about sums up anything we can discuss on this topic. Copyright violations only matter if no one makes money off it (interestingly, the exact *opposite* of what the law says, where penalties come in direct proportion to how much someone profits from the use of stolen material). Make the RIAA money, regardless of how, or prepare to face legal battles the likes of which even Puffy couldn't weather. Fortunately for Puffy, and Wierd Al, and every other SUCCESSFUL artist that makes "derivative" works, the RIAA can make enough off the music to keep them at bay.
Sampling fees are another issue. I do not know what record companies charge for sampling fees, but if they are anything like the prices that they rip us off with CD's with, then I don't blame them. Artists need to be paid, but the amount of this that goes to the record companies is just ridiculous.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
but is there not a certain degree of freedown allowable in reference parodies?
Under United States copyright law as interpreted by the courts, parody is only parody when the parody ridicules the original work itself. That's why The Wind Done Gone is legal but The Cat Not in the Hat isn't.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Your post is misleading.
There are less than 50,000 4-note melodies. 4 notes being all it took in one particular court case.
However that only means that there are 50,000 unique melodies in a legal sense.
In an artistic sense there are millions.
I know in the UK there is a service called Shazam which you call up with your mobile phone, point your phone at a 'music source' for around 15 seconds and then you get a text message/SMS back around 30 seconds later showing a) the artist name (handy for 'cover versions) and b) the track name. It also has the facility (if you register) to 'store' your requests on its website and give appropriate links to online music stores.
It seems to work quite alright as well, I tested it by playing 2 tracks at once out my speakers - it correctly identified one of them (I thought it'll fail complete), I've tried it via the radio on a bus - again success, admiteddly it failed in a very crowded and noisy nightclub - but it's still damn good (and resonable cheap) for identifying music.
The claim that they can recognise 1.5million different tracks from just a 15 second second sample - I don't know how they do it though, but I know *I'm* impressed by the technology!
Goddammit, I used the notes C, D, E, and F again! Those `Happy Birthday' ladies (as well as everyone else) will probably sue me.
:-( *
As a songwriter, I often wonder: How the F*** am I supposed to compare my songs to the other one-million songs out there to see if they are `substantially similar?' Hell, any three-chord song sounds `substantially similar' to any other three-chord song.
I hereby renounce my title as a creator. Everything I could ever make (as music, as art, as writing, as code) has already been done and been copyrighted and/or patented. I will now slave away in a factory. Thank you for your time.
No, this is not a troll. This is simply a scared U.S. citizen.
*=Registered trademark of despair.com
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
Just curious, but doesn't MP3 signifigantly alter a waveform when it chucks the parts you normally can't hear? It'd be like fingerprinting with half the prints missing or otherwised changed around, I'd imagine. Oh, I'm sure they could make a close approximation, but the an approximation isn't nessisarily going to hold up in a court.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
For Puff Daddy, the music thing is now a sideline. He's really an apparel designer, and a good one. See his new fall 2002 line, selling under the Sean John label. He's considered the most innovative designer in men's fashion right now. His stuff sells, too, unlike most other new ideas in menswear. It's not just runway fashion.
Lots of great (and ironically original) groups and DJs do lots of sampling, but rearrange the samples or cut them up into weird new unexpected beats.. and really redefine the sound.
Examples? DJ Shadow, Fat Boy Slim, Moby, Daft Punk.. there are a hundred examples.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Why? Because it's the exact same argument the very next guy uses and he's modded as an 'interesting'. Common, a little consistancy here? And he's absolutely right. Music is not open source as is the popular opinion. And late at night when Aunt Betty is asleep and i'm honest with myself, I have this tiny little fear: That the pirates- yes, you and I -Really are destroying the music industry. Oh, sure, the Labels are doing their part, but what is the long term effect this all has besides this RIAA crap? Well, I've thought of some...
Pirating really is like welfare. I can see people becoming so use to free music that it'll poison the industry. Joe has a few hit songs, but like most people, doesn't have the cash or the distibution infrastructure to get visibility. (and no, the internet is barely a viable option at this point) Unfortunately, neither do the labels anymore because all it takes is a dozen people to hit the net with any P2P program, and they're ass outta luck with near zero chance of defraying the cost. What happens? Joe is either really, really, really dedicated or he says I have a wife and kids to feed and drops the music gig. Now picture that on a large scale.
Now I'm not saying that this will happen 100% or the industry eventially won't eventially find other ways to make money off hits, but it doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to a see a music recession on the rise because neither side will back down. And before I get any high and mighty replies about the evil empires raping us at the counter, I ask you this: What do you do if a department store gives you shitty service? Overprices their product? Oh, naturally you steal it off the shelf, right? Contrary to popular belief, you can change the industries behavior without resorting to THEFT... It just takes a lot of hard work and we're all lazy bastards.
You need a FREE iPod Nano